Nichiren's problematic works

Post Reply
illarraza
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

Nichiren's problematic works

Post by illarraza » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:19 am

http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2684

Stephen Paine wrote:

Stephen Paine created the doc: ST. NICHIRENS AUTHENTIC GOSHOS: St. Nichiren Shonin THE ROKU NAI LIST.



ST. NICHIRENS AUTHENTIC GOSHOS

St. Nichiren Shonin

Note* The follow list of gosho do have forgeries mixed within them and we will identify them with commentaries and historical backgrounds for each proper to Nichiren. This is a major undertaking but will clear up most of the confusion with Nichiren's letters, especially with the historical project number 6 on our project list coupled with it.

THE "ROKU NAI"
&
Problematic Goshos , Forgeries, Dubious Suspect...
(second below)

This page (Goshos-Roku-nai list) is under construction, we are using temporary translation at this time; however we are working on new translation that we feel accord more percisely with St. Nichiren's original letters and thought. We will add asterisks * soon by those known to be authentic.

Anyone interested in this project let us know.

The list Called "ROKU NAI' (literally, "inside the list") was compiled by St. Nichiren's "Six Senior Priests" and Toki Jonin upon the first anniversary of his death; they were collected from disciples and persons known to possess his Authentic Goshos, which listed 148 Goshos into 40 volumes. The Six Senior priests were extremely familiar with their Masters personal writings. (Note: 148, or 146, as the " SHUJU OFURUMAI GOSHO" is made from approx. three Goshos)

THE ROKU NAI LIST (146)
1. RISSHO ANKOKU RON
2. KAIMOKU SHO (first volume)
3. KAIMOKU SHO (second volume)
4. SENJI SHO (first volume)
5. SENJI SHO (second volume)
6. HO'ON SHO (first volume)
7. HO'ON SHO (second volume)
8. KANJIN HONZON SHO
9. HOKKE SHUYO SHO
10. HONZON MONDO SHO
11. SHUGO KOKKA RON
12. HOKKE DAIMOKU SHO
13. SHO HOKKE DAIMOKU SHO
14. KEN HOBO SHO
15. ICHIDAI SHOKYO TAII (ICHIDAI TAII SHO)
16. KEN RITSU SHOI SHO
17. MYOHO BIKUNI GOHENJI
18. OTOGOZEN GOSHOSOKU
(OTOGOZEN HAHA AMA GOSHO or YO NICHIMYONI SHO)
19. SANZE SHOBUTSU SOKANMON KYOSO HAIRYU (SANZE
SHOBUTSU SOKANMON SHO)
20. SHIMON BUTSUJYO GI (TOKIDONO SHO or SYUJYU SOTAI SHO)
21. Letter to Horen HOREN SHO
22. Letter to the Brothers KYODAI SHO
23. JUPPOKAI MEI INGA SHO
(JUKKAI INGA SHO or JUKKAI MEI INGA SHO)
24. On Prayer KITO SHO
25. SHIJO KINGO YURUSHI GOMON
(SHO HACHIMAN SHO or NICHIGENNYO GOSHO)
26. SHISHIN GOHON SHO
27. HOKKE GYOJA CHINAN NO KOTO (YO MONJIN SHO)
28. Letter to Teradomari TERADOMARI GOSHO
29. SHIGON SHOSHU IMOKU (SHOSHU IMOKU SHO)
30. Letter from Sado SADO GOSHO
31. TENSU KYOJU HOMON (SHURI HANDOKU SHO)
32. SHIJO KINGO DONO GOHENJI (KO SHOHO SHO)
33. SHOKYO TO HOKEKYO TO NAN I NO KOTO (NANSHIN NANGE
SHO)
34. BO JIKYO NO KOTO
35. SHIJO KINGO DONO GOHENI
(ONSHITSU DAIJIN KIHAJI)
36. SHUKUN NO MIMI NI HOMON WO IRE YODOZAI WO
MANUKARURU KOTO (SHUKUN SHO)
37. SHIJO KINGO DONO GOHENJI (I HOKEKYO FUKASHAKU
SHORYO JI)
38. SHIJO KINGO DONO GOHRNJI (SHORYO SHO)
39. Munobu-san Gosho MINOBUSAN GOSHO
40. TAN'E SHO (UENO DONO GOHENJI or YO NANJO SHI SHO)
41. NAKAOKI NYUDO GOSHOSOKU (YO NAKAOKI NYUDO TSUMA
SHO or NAKAOKI SHO)
42. GESSU! GOSHO (HO DAIGAKU SABURO TSUMA SHO or
DAIGAKU SHO)
43. DAIMOKU MIDA MYOGO SHORETSU NO KOTO
44. SAN SANZO KIU NO KOTO (NISHJYAMA SHO or HO OUCHI SHI
SHO)
45. NYONIN OJO SHO
46. Letter to Misawa MISAWA SHO
47. JOREMBO GOSHO (ZENDO SKO or GOSHA SHICHISHU SHUJO
GOSHO)
48. SUSHUN TENNO GOSHO (SHIJO SHO or DO JIGOKU SHO)
49. SHIJO KINGO DONO GOHENJI (BONNONJO SHO)
50. NICHIMYO SHONIN GOSHO
51. SENNICHI AMA COZUN GOHENJI , S- E N VOL 2 P- 1597
52. KOU AMA GOZEN GOSHO
53. SHINNICHI AMA GOZEN GOHENJI
(SADO ABUTSUBO GOSHO or ABUTSUBO GOSHO)
54. NANJO HYOE SICHIRO DONO GOSHO (UENO DONO GOSHO)
55. KOUNICHIBO GOSHO
56. JI MYOHOKKE MONDO SHO
57. Letter to Akimoto AKIMOTO GOSHO
58. MYONICHI NYO GOHENJI (MYONICHI AMA GOHENJJ)
59. HOKKE SHOSHIN JOBUTSU SHO
60. NANJO HYOE SHICHIRO DONO GOHENJI
61. SHONIN GONANJI (GONAN SHO)
62. TOTAI GI SHO
63. JIKAKU DAISHI NO KOTO (OTA NYUDO GOHENJI)
64. NYOSETSU SHUGYO-SHO On Practicing the Buddha's Teachings
65. HONZON KUYO GOSHO (NANJO HEISHICHIRO GOSHO)
66. SHUJU OFURUMAI GOSHO
67. SHUKU JUSSHO GOSHO
68 SOYA NYUDO DONO YURUSHI GOSHO
69. SAINAN TAIJI SHO
70. KYOKIJIKOKU SHO
71. ISSAKUJITSU GOSHO
72. SHIMOYAMA GOSHOSOKU (KEMPON SHO)
73. KANGYO HACHIMAN SHO
74. KEMBUTSU MIRAIKI
75- GO GOHYAKUSAI AIMON
76. HOKYO HOJU JI
77. JUNYOZE NO KOTO
78. MYOHO MANDARA KUYO NO KOTO (HONZON KUYO SHO)
79. SHONIN SANZE WO SHIRU NO KUTO (SHONIN CHI SANZE JI)
80. SHIJOKINGO SHAKABUTSU KUYO NO KOTO
81. NICHIGENNYO ZORYU SHAKABUTSU KUYO JI
82. DOJOSHIN SHUGO NO KOTO
83. CHIBYO DAISHO GONJITSU IMOKU
84. YORIMOTO CHINJO (RYUZO MONDO SHO)
85. YADOYA NYUDO YURUSHI GOSHO
86. ANKOKU RON OKUGAKI
87. KYOJIN JO GOHENJI
88. ZEMMUI SHO
89. OTA DONO YURUSHI GOSHO (SHOKYO CHU OU JI)
90. HOMMON KAITAJ SHO
91. JUSSHO SHO
92. HOMON MOSARUBEKI YO NO KOTO
93. MONCHU TOKUJ SHO
94. MOKUE NIZO KAIGEN NO KOTO (SOMOKU JOBUTSU SHO)
95. SENNICHI AMA GOHENJI (CHO ABUTSUBO SHO)
96. TOKI NYUDO DONO GOHENJI (JONIN SHO or RINKEN
SHUKKAI SHO)
97. TOKI DONO GOHENJI (TOKI DONO GOSHO)
98. DAIGAKU SABURO DONO GOSHO
99. TOKIMITSU DONO GOHENJI
100. MYOHO AMA GOZEN GOHENJI
101. UENO DONO GOHENJI (CHIBABO SHO or RYUMON SHO)
102. UENO DONO GOHENJI (GAMOKU SHO)
103. UENO DONO GOHENJI (HOYO SHO)
104. UENO DONO GOHENJI (SHO ICHIDA SHO)
105. NANJO DONO GOHENJI (NANJO OHASMITARO SHO)
106. YAKUOHON TOKUI SHO
107. SEICHOJI DAISHU CHU (KOKUZO BOSATSU SHO)
108. HIKIRI DONO GOSHO
109. OTA DONO NYOBO GOHENJI
110. MUJO SEMMETSUSHO
111. NIZEN TOKUDO UMU GOSHO
112. TOSH NEMBUTSUSHA MUKENJJGOKU NO KOTO
113. JUPPOKAI NO KOTO
114. MATSUNO DONO GOKE AMA GOZEN GOHENJI
115. OSHAJO NO KOTO
116. HOKKE SHINGON SHORETSU NO KOTO
117. SKINGON TENDAJ SHORETSU NO KOTO
118. ICHINOSAWA NYUDO NYOBO GOHENJI
119. NANJO DONO GOHENJI (SHOSHUN SHO)
120. UENO DONO GOHENJI (SOMOKU NIJO SANDAI JOBUTSU
SI)
121. UENO DONO GOHENJI (NIKAN SHO)
122. TAKAHASHI. NYUDO DONO COHBNJI (NISHIYAMA SHO)
123. ICHINEN SANZEN RIJI (ICHINEN SANZEN SHO)
124. Letter to Niike NIIKE DONO GOSHOSOKII (HO NIIKEZAEMONJO SHO)
125. NEMBUTSHUSHA TSUIHO SENJO JI
126. SHINGON KEMMON
127. SOYA DONO GOHENJI (YAKIGOME SHO)
128. MAMA SHAKABUTSU GOKUYO OIJO
129. GYOBIN SOJO GOETSU
130. RISSHO KANSHO
131. RJSSHO KANSHO OKURIJO
132. KITOKYO OKURIJO (SEN HOKKE SHO)
133. OTA DONO NYOBO GOHENJI (HACHI KANJIGOKU SHO)
134. JOMYO SHONIN GOHENJI
135. OTA DONO NYOBO GOHENJI (SOKUSHIN JOBUTSU JI)
136. NIZEN NIJO BOSATSU FUSABUTSU JI
137. SHIJO KINGO DONO NYOBO GOHENJI
138. KAITAI SOHUSHIN JOBUTSU GI
139. HYOE NO SAKUWAN DONO GOHENJI (KANGYO SHO)
140. KANJIN RONZON TOKUI SHO
141. SHIJO KINGO GOSHO (NAKATSUKASA SAEMON NO JO DONO
GOSHO)
142. ITAI DOSHIN JI
143. SHIJO KINGO DONO GOHENJI (KOKUKAI SHO or BUPPO OHO
SHOBU SHO)
144. SHION SHO (IZU GOKANKI SHO)
145. SHOMITSUBO GOSHO
146. JIHIKI GOSHO (ICHINICHIKYO GOSHO)

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Goshos above are in proper SEQUENCE of the original "ROKU NAI " LIST, but the attached numbers on the heads of the titles of the Goshos are not proper to them.

The first mention of the idea of "Nichiren as True Buddha" surfaces in the 17th Century. Many forgeries have been created and attributed to Taisekiji (a common trait among some schools of Buddhism in Japan), all to give credit to their lineage... These writings (pious or otherwise) do great harm to St. Nichiren's teachings, they go against the words of Nichiren.

Then there is the Roku Gai collection of Nichirens writings believed to have been collected between 10 and 100 years after Nichiren's death. Even in the Roku Nai collection. some priests and scholars assert that there are forgeries. Nichiren and Nikko warned us about those evil men who create forgeries and and the stupid one who mis-translate Buddhist sutras and commentaries. Just because a Gosho is approved by the Nichiren Shu such as The Shoho Jisso Sho ("Approved and trusted") their is not unanimity as to its authenticity.

One last thought... were it true that the common mortal endowed the Eternal Buddha with the Three Virtues (Shoho Jisso Sho) then, according to SGI's Nichiren as Eternal Buddha theory, the common mortal is greater than Nichiren not just Shakyamuni. Don't you see the inconsistancies?

illarraza
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Nichiren's problematic works

Post by illarraza » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:50 am

On authentic and dubious writings attributed to Nichiren by Graham Lamont

"1) Those Gosho still extant in Nichiren Shonin's (goshinseki) handwriting are clearly authentic.

2) Those goshinseki destroyed in the Minobu fire of 1876' No one questions most of these works, e.g. the Kaimoku sho. however, one of these, the Shuju Ofurumai gosho, a partially autobiographical work, is still debated. Nevertheless, since a very early Fuji-ha biography of the Patriarch cites two key passages from this work, it seems likely to be genuine, for the original copy was at Minobusan.

3) Copies by Nikko and other first generation disciples. Also a few copies by slightly later disciples

4) Works with no early copies but doctrinally and stylistically close to the above works

5) Works that have no early copies and have doctrinal and stylistic differences with the above 1-4 categories. These are clearly dubious.

The San Dai Hi Ho Sho is a widely debated work with some relying on a computer study of its vocabulary to assert its genuineness but it is clearly close to the Fuji-ha. Nikko does not mention it when discussing the Three Great Secret Laws.

The Shoho jisso sho, in the opinion of many. is a forgery in its first two or three pages (STN, v. 1, 723-725) which was supposedly written a short time after the Kanjin honzon sho. These pages expound a form of medieval Tendai original emlightenment [hongaku] without mentioning "hongaku" as such: It asserts the bombu or unenlightened worldling as the real Buddha. Thereafter, however, it returns to a more conventional view that is close to the genuine works of Nichiren Shonin (classes 1-3 above); on the other hand even parts of the more authentic-looking part (page 725 on) appear to be pasted together by a later copyist and there are different modern versions of this section in part. I still think the part from p. 725 on maybe a fusion of two or more real letters of the Patriarch.

The Issho jobutsu sho has some genuine-looking passages but also some slightly hongaku passages; this might be explained as the remnants of Nichiren Shonin's Tendai training and so scholars date it to 1255 (relatively early). On the other hand its advanced exposition of the Daimoku faith points to a time after 1260. These facts lead me to be very suspicious.

Please note that some of the dubious works attributed to Nichiren Shonin contain passages that summarize genuine ideas of the Patriarch BUT we must be aware that they do not have the same certainty found in authentic works.

I hope this is useful."

illarraza
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Nichiren's problematic works

Post by illarraza » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:21 am

FORGERY: HONGAKU NOT NICHIREN'S DOCTRINE by Graham Lamont

It is has been stated that opposition to hongaku is wrong and that
the “Matter of the Ten Thusnesses” (Junyoze no koto) is a
genuine work simply because it is recorded in the “Rokunai gosho”
collection.

1) The “Rokunai” catalogue is not any guide to authenticity; although
at one time it was a slightly better standard for genuine works than
the “Rokuge” collections, the naive belief that it was compiled on the
first anniversary of Nichiren’s death has long since been discredited;
it is a catalogue from long after. (“Nichiren Shonin Ibun jiten”,
1212c); as far as I can see the first reference to such collection is
by Honjobo Nichijitsu of the Nakayama Lineage in 1461. Clearly given
the state of Nichiren Buddhism then under the influence of the most
corrupt monistic tendencies of the Medieval Tendai (chuko Tendai)
establishment, the “Rokunai mokuroku” is by no means any guarantee
of authenticity; in light of the sophisticated studies done in modern
times when access to texts of various sects and lineages became
easier, to cling to the notion that any document in this collection is
ipso facto reliable and genuine is the height of ignorance and
naivete.

[Note: in Maltz’s so-called “Kempon Hokke Vision, v. 3, no.
6, p. 7, Yashuhara admits that this was compiled not later than 120
years after Nichiren; plenty of time for all sort of forgeries to be admitted
to the canon.]

Of all the forgeries under Nichiren’s august name, this particular
document is perhaps the most egregious fake, because it can be shown
to be derived from a work FALSELY attributed to Genshin (Eshin sozu:
942 1017) and included in “Eshin sozu zenshu”, v. 3, the “Essential
Notes on Attaining Buddhahood in this Very Body by the ‘Hokke’”
(“Hokke sokushin jobutsu yoki”); the “Junyoze no koto” itself was long
ago a subject of dispute even in traditional times and was once
regularly attributed to (of all people) Jikaku Daishi (Ennin:
794-864), a man whose errors Nichiren sharply attacked! As to the
“Essential Notes on Attaining Buddhahood in this Very Body by the
‘Hokke’”, of which this work is clearly a revision or adaptation, at
various times it was also attributed to Kakucho (960 1034); textual
studies by Shigyo Kaishu showed decades ago that the present “Junyoze
no koto” and the “Essential Notes on Attaining Buddhahood in this Very
Body by the ‘Hokke’” extremely close. (See Asai Yorin, “Nichiren
kyogaku no kenkyu”, pp. 275-277, 303); this conclusion, far from being
overturned in recent years has been adopted by standard reference
works: (See“Nichiren Shonin Ibun jiten”, 503c) Moreover, even the
editors of the “Showa Teihon” in the Nichiren Sect, who were not very
strict in separating out forgeries decided to put this “Junyoze no
koto” in the Continuation Section (zokuhen) which is reserved for
questionalbe texts. (v. 3, 2030-2033; no.3)

[Note, even if one were to concede that this work is by Nichiren, it
is supposedly from the year (Shoga 2 = 1258) and thus would have less
significance than Sado and post-Sado writings.]

Let us now turn to the assertion that Honda Nissho was fervent believer
in this hongaku monism, so beloved of Maltz and other “ex” Gakkai “New Agers”.

From the Kanjin Honzon-Sho, Nichiren Dai Shonin (trans. Kyotsu Hori),
Chapter 4 (Upholding the Lotus Sutra and Attaining Buddhahood),

Pages 88-96

Question (20): You have not responded to the serious question raise earlier regarding the
Buddha residing in our minds, have you?
Answer: It is said in the Sutra of Infinite Meaning (Muryogi-kyo), an introductory
teaching to the Lotus Sutra: "though unable to perform the six kinds of
practice leading to Buddhahood: charity, observing precepts, perseverance,
effort, meditation and wisdom, upholders of this sutra will inevitably receive
merits from practicing them." The second chapter of the Lotus Sutra states:
"We wish to hear the way to perfection;" and in the Nirvana Sutra it is said:
"'Sad' in the Saddharmapundarika (Lotus Sutra) means 'perfection'."
Bodhisattva Nagarjuna says in his great Wisdom Discourse (Daichido-ron)
that "sad" means "six" while the Annotations on the Four Mahayana Treatises
(Wu-i wu-te ta-cheng ssu-lun hsuan-i chi) by Hui-chun of T'ang China means
"perfection" in India. The Annotations on the Meaning of the Lotus Sutra
(Fa-hua i-su) by Chi-tsang states that "sad" is translated as "perfection"; while
Grand Master T'ien-t'ai states in his Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Fa-hua
hsuan-i) that "sad" is a Sanskrit term which is translated as "miao"
(wonderful) in China.

I fear that I may debase these passages if I try to interpret them, but I
dare do so in order to answer your question. The gist of these passages is that
Sakyamuni Buddha's merit of practicing the bodhisattva way leading to
Buddhahood, as well as that of preaching and saving all living beings since His
attainment of Buddhahood are altogether contained in the five words of
myo, ho, ren, ge, and kyo (Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Dharma) and that
consequently, when we uphold the five words, the merits which He accumulated
before and after His attainment of Buddhahood are naturally transferred to us.
Thus, it is stated in the Lotus Sutra (chapter four, "Understanding by Faith)
that four great sravaka such as Kasyapa rejoiced in their understanding of the
teaching of the Lotus Sutra enabling sravaka to attain Buddhahood, and reported
to the Buddha that they had been given invaluable jewels without asking for them.
This represents the attainment of Buddhahood by the sravaka realm contained in
our minds.

Not only the sravaka but also Sakyamuni Buddha is within us. For we
encounter such a statement like this in the second chapter of the Lotus Sutra:
"It was My (Sakyamuni's) original vow to let all beings become like Myself. My
vow has now been fulfilled. I have helped them all enter the way of the
Buddha." Does this not mean, that Sakyamuni Buddha, who has attained Perfect
Enlightenment, is our flesh and blood, and all the merits He has accumulated
before and after attaining Buddhahood are our bones?

Moreover, the eleventh chapter of the Lotus Sutra "Appearance of the Stupa
of Treasures", states: "Those who uphold the teaching of this sutra are deemed
to serve Me, Sakyamuni, and Taho Buddha. They also serve Buddhas in
manifestation here who adorn and glorify their respective worlds." This means
that Sakyamuni Buddha, Taho Buddha, and all the Buddhas in manifestation
are in our minds, and that we, upholders of the Lotus Sutra, will follow their
steps and inherit all the merits of those Buddhas.

This is the meaning of the passage in the tenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra,
"The Teacher of the Dharma", which reads: "Those who hear of this Lotus Sutra
even for a moment, will instantly attain Perfect Enlightenment." A passage in
the sixteenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra, "Duration of the Life of the Buddha",
contends: "It has been many hundreds of thousands of billions of nayuta of
kalpa (an incalculably long period of time) since I have attained Buddhahood."
It means that Sakyamuni buddha, within our minds, is an ancient Buddha without
beginning, manifesting Himself in three bodies, and attained buddhahood in the
eternal past described as 500 dust-particle kalpa ago.

In the same chapter, another passage reads: "The duration of My life, which
I obtained through the practice of the way of bodhisattvas, has not yet
expired. It is twice as long as the length of time stated above: 500
dust-particle kalpa." This reveals the bodhisattva-realm within out minds. The
bodhisattvas described in the fifteenth chapter, "Appearance of Bodhisattvas
from Underground", who have sprung out of the great earth, as numerous as the
number of dust-particles of 1,000 worlds, are followers of the Original Buddha
Sakyamuni who resides within our minds.

They are like T'ai-kung-wang and Duke of Chou, retainers of King Wu of the
Chou dynasty in ancient China, who at the same time served the King's young
son, King Ch'eng; or Takeuchi-no Sukune of ancient Japan, a leading minister to
Empress Jingu, who concurrently served her son, Prince Nintoku. Just like them
Bodhisattvas Jogyo, Muhengyo, Jogyo and Anryugyo, the four leaders of those
bodhisattvas sprung up from the earth, are simultaneously followers of the
Original Buddha and Bodhisattvas who reside in the minds of us, ordinary
people.

Therefore, Grand Master Miao-le has declared in his Annotation on the Mo-ho
chih-kuan (Mo-ho chih-kuan fu-hsing-chuan hung-chueh): "You should know that
both our bodies and the land on which we live are a part of the 3,000 modes of
existence which exist in our minds. Consequently, upon our attainment of
Buddhahood, we are in complete agreement with the truth of '3,000 existences
contained in one thought', and our single body and single thought permeate
through all the worlds in the universe."

------------------------------------------------------------

Let us take a look at Honda’s “Hokekyo kogi”
(“Lectures on the Lotus Sutra”); commenting on the “Chapter of the
Measure of Life of the Tathagata”: in volume 2, p. 215, he
specifically states in commenting the first line of the central “Jiga
ge”:

“The saintly patriarch relying on the vast numbers preaches the
innumerable, and therewith judges it to reveal the Beginningless
Really-existing Original Buddha of Concrete (or Tangible) Character
of the Enjoyment and Response [Bodies], when as he says it ‘is the
Beginningless Ancient Buddha of kalpas as many as the dust of
countries touched or not by the dust of five hundred of tens of
trillions of nayutas of asamkheyas of great trichiliocosms (gohyaku
jinden gô) and so on to the Three Bodies that are revealed’, it is
this. Although in discussing this Original Buddha there are those who
cull out the Buddha Who practiced and manifested the Effect and point
to the Ideality (Abstraction) of Unmanifest Original Enlightenment
(hongaku no ritai) and take this Abstract Buddha (ributsu) that is the
unenlightened worldling (bombu) to be the Original Buddha (hombutsu)
and take the Actual Buddha (jibutsu) as the Manifestation Buddha
(shakubutsu);"

"This is by no means (kesshite) the conclusion of the
faith and practice of [the Bodhisattva] Converted by the Original
Buddha (honge). However, among the Saint’s latter lineages they
frequently assert this doctrine and advocate that it is the sublime
doctrine revealed by the ‘[Chapter] of the Measure of Life’ alone and
the Ultimate Theory exceeding the {Bodhisattva] Converted by the
Original Buddha (honge); the ignorant heedlessly would follow suit.
Alas! This child is to be pitied !”

The passage is reasonably clear: in interpreting this central part of
the “Lotus Sutra” Honda makes it clear that the Buddha spoken of in
Chapter Sixteen is of a concrete or tangible character (gutaikaku)
relating to the Enjoyment and Response Bodies (hojin and ojin) and he
utilizes a phrase from the “Kanjin honzon sho” to describe this
Buddha; although there are some who have tried to twist the phrase to
mean something else Honda is fairly clear: he believes in the “Actual
Buddha” (ji butsu) and dismisses the theory of the Abstract or Ideal
(ritai) Original Enlightenment, which, as every scholar should know,
is oriented towards the Dharma Body (hosshin) of the Buddh

(See the comparison between the two views, the “Beginningless
Ancient Buddha” and the “Hongaku Uncreate Three Bodies” in Asai Yorin,
“Nichiren kyogaku no kenkyu”, pp. 287-315, especially the summary on
p. 295)

It should be noted that Honda’s description tallies with the idea
found in the “Kaimoku sho” (STN, v. 1, 5536-8) where Nichiren says the
feature that separates the “Hokekyo” from all other Mahayana Sutras is
the concept of the “revelation of the original” (kempon) of the
Enjoyment Body (hojin) and of the Response Body (ojin). (Shigyo
Kaishu, “Nichiren no ‘Kanjin honzon sho’ no busshin ron ni tsuite” p.
181, cites this “Kaimoku sho” passage to show Nichiren was NOT
oriented towards the Hosshin based hongaku view of the Buddha


Significantly Honda then goes on to criticize in no uncertain terms
those ignorant people who willy-nilly follow those who take ri hongaku
to be the Original or Fundamental Buddha and take the Actual Buddha to
be a a mere Manifestation Buddha. (This hongaku doctrine is clearly
expressed in “On the Reality of the Dharmas” (Shoho jisso sho) (STN,
v. 1, 724 l. 11)), a work much praised by Taisekiji and the Soka
Gakkai. Surely this fact is significant: the position vehemently
proclaimed by the Fuji Branch is the very position which Honda
condemns as being by no means the final doctrine of Nichiren Shonin;
he then continues by noting the prevalence of this view among the
latter-day religious groups of the Nichiren movement he pities the
children who blindly take this view point. Could there be a better
description of Maltz and his Soka Gakkai followers? Truly they are to
be pitied !

As for Yasuhara’s claim that Honda cited the “Junyoze no koto” in the
“Daizokyo yogi” (“Essential Doctrine of the Great Sutra Store”), I do
not doubt it; but in what context did he use it?

Moreover, as the title implies this appears to be an over-all view of the
Buddhist canon, not the quintessential Truth of all Truths, the “Lotus Sutra”.

Nor again can Yasuhara wriggle out of the charge of promoting
Medieval Tendai by saying that the Medieval Tendai (Chuko Tendai) idea
required no practice; of course, the people who introduced this sort
of thought into the Nichiren canon tack on chanting the Daimoku and so
on in order to make their fundamental alteration of Nichiren’s world
view more acceptable and plausible.

Moreover, even some Chuko Tendai works included some kind of nod in the
direction “practice”. The sin here is to twist Nichiren’s doctrine of an
actually-existing Buddha into this abstract Hongaku in which the worldling is
the Original Buddha.

In fact, those people who passed off such works as these as genuine
writings of Nichiren fundamentally changed the metaphysics behind his
religion from the concept of an objective, actual Eternal Buddha Who
is omnipresent and even in our minds and Who out of Great Compassion
grants us His merit through the Daimoku into that of a highly
subjective monistic view in which the Buddha Body is reduced to a mere
projection of ourselves. (Again: see the writings by Shigyo and Asai
cited above.)

Despite attempts by various groups (such as the forerunners of the
modern so-called Nichiren Shu) to reconcile the two concepts of the Buddha Body,
they are fundamentally different and the people who combined them always gave
the Hongaku view precedence.

Because of the relative complexity of some of the issues I will defer
this. (Again: see the writings by Shigyo and Asai cited above.)
I have to say Maltz’s recent statements seem to bear out my belief
that he and his followers really do not understand the difference
between hongaku thought and the historical Nichiren’s hommon thought.

The terms “hombutsu” (original Buddha) or “hondo” (original land)
do not of themselves imply the hongaku monistic world view. Likewise the
concept of the Buddha in our minds does not imply the Tathagata of
Original Enlightenment. [Likewise on rare occasions “hongaku” can be
synonym for the actual Original Buddha but this appears to be a
relatively rare usage and that is clearly not what is meant in these
forgeries attributed to Nichiren.] Denying “Hongaku” is not equivalent
to denying the Original Buddha (hombutsu). Quite the contrary it is
defending and giving honor to the Original Buddha Shakyamuni!

There is much more I could say and possibly will say on this subject but I
want to make the following observations: First: Maltz has declared on the basis of
one passage in Stone’s book that every one who dares to oppose his Soka Gakkai
Hongaku philosophy is “out of bounds” and “in the penalty box”. Who gave him
authority to cut off rational discussion in this preemptive and dictatorial
way?

Cannot anyone see what is happening here? Not only is he chiming in
with the Gakkai/Taisekiji metaphysical view (he only differs from them
where he needs a hook to pull in their members or ex-members to build
his own organization) but he is acting like an absolute ruler in
cutting off discussion!

Well, let us see who is in the “penalty box” with me:
Most of the Old Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju) before the lineage
began to decline. (Unless, of course, Kubota and Yasuhara want to
show me that these men were gung-ho for “Ri hongaku”.)

The above cited scholars, Asai Yorin and Shigyo Kaishu, two of
the best historical and textual scholars of the mid-twentieth century
Tamura Yoshiro, author of the monumental work, “Kamakura Shin Bukkyo
no kenkyu” (“A Study of the New Buddhism of Kamakura”)
Miyazaki Eishu (I believe he is an acquaintance of Rev. Kubota) who
says in his excellent little reference work “Nichiren jiten” p. 261,
where he labels the “Ongi kuden” and “Onko kikigaki” forgeries and
notes that if Nichiren used these concepts it was as a warning and was
exceptional, for Hongaku was not really part of the original Tendai
doctrinal system."

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6396
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Nichiren's problematic works

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:49 pm

illarraza wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:19 am
One last thought... were it true that the common mortal endowed the Eternal Buddha with the Three Virtues (Shoho Jisso Sho) then, according to SGI's Nichiren as Eternal Buddha theory, the common mortal is greater than Nichiren not just Shakyamuni. Don't you see the inconsistancies?
For one, I don't know if there is any doctrine taught by SG that the common mortal is "greater" than Nichiren and Shakyamuni. I don't even know what it would mean to assert that one thing is greater than another. These just sound like vague polemics that actually have no subtantive meaning.

More critically, there seems to be a lack of understanding of basic Buddhist teaching in the controversy about the generation point of the Three Virtues.

From the perspective of Buddha, the world is without marks.
...the Tathāgata perceives all the marks of the triple world as they really are: that there is no birth and death, coming or going; that there is also no existence or extinction in the world, truth or falsehood, sameness or difference. The Tathāgata does not view the triple world as sentient beings in the triple world see it. The Tathāgata perceives such things clearly and without mistakes.
LS, Ch. 16

However, ordinary beings are mired in wrong views. They project all manner delusions on the true aspect (jisso). So the Buddha, working with the delusions, causes beings to aspire to Buddhahood:
“Since sentient beings have various natures, desires, behaviors, thoughts, and distinctions, the Tathāgata, wanting to cause them to plant roots of good merit, has explained various teachings through a variety of examples, explanations, and illustrations.
LS, Ch. 16

Without sentient beings who toil in samsara, there is no conception of Buddha as a Parent, Teacher and Sovereign. Enlightened beings see the Buddha as he really is. This reality is not exclusive of the conception of Buddha as Parent, Teacher and Sovereign, but the real context of that is understood as something that arises through the contact between sentient being and Buddha. The only place a sentient being can be found, actually, is in that point of contact, and nowhere else. The three virtues are something that the sentient being sees and projects onto the Buddha. The Buddha for his part says, "you can bleed on me", while eternally, spontaneously leading sentient beings to awaken.

To assert that these qualities are somehow categorically real, essential and inherent in the Buddha betrays a deep ignorance of what the Buddha taught. The real is inconceivable, and yet cursed by the three poisons, we endlessly grasp at what we hope is permanent, but which always turns out to be a phantom we conjured ourselves - an extension of our mistaken notion of self.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6396
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Nichiren's problematic works

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:57 pm

illarraza wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:21 am
The passage is reasonably clear: in interpreting this central part of
the “Lotus Sutra” Honda makes it clear that the Buddha spoken of in
Chapter Sixteen is of a concrete or tangible character (gutaikaku)
relating to the Enjoyment and Response Bodies (hojin and ojin) and he
utilizes a phrase from the “Kanjin honzon sho” to describe this
Buddha; although there are some who have tried to twist the phrase to
mean something else Honda is fairly clear: he believes in the “Actual
Buddha” (ji butsu) and dismisses the theory of the Abstract or Ideal
(ritai) Original Enlightenment, which, as every scholar should know,
is oriented towards the Dharma Body (hosshin) of the Buddh
To be honest, I found most of this passage attributed to Lamont rambling and difficult to parse. I'll address this paragraph, though, because this is representative of what appears to be the emphasis on the Rupakaya (Form Body) that is argued to be Honda's point of emphasis.

Nichiren taught the eternal Trikaya - Dharmakaya (Dharmabody), Sambhogakaya (Enjoyment Body) and Nirmanakaya (Response Body), not just eternal Rupakaya, ie. Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya.

It seems in the zeal to emphasize the Rupakaya, this fellow has ignored the Dharmakaya. In seeking to address one bias, he's gone and sunk himself in another.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ginkyo and 14 guests